I've gone out of my way to make sure it follows a fair format, including having definitions for the key terms we would be using, as well as having a good set of rules in place for how we should both behave in the debate.

And yet typically, undoubtedly because of the fact that he would have to, for the first time, actually present sources for his views, v3nesl has cowardly refused to properly debate me, coming up with this pathetic excuse:

At 7/22/2013 2:50:06 PM, v3nesl wrote:

At 7/22/2013 2:42:20 PM, JonMilne wrote:I have posted this debate on the main page now. http://www.debate.org... . I'd like v3nesl to put forward his case there.

Look, if any of you seriously want to debate me, just propose a "Did life evolve" debate. Quit trying to stack the deck from the git go.

There is nothing to suggest I was stacking the deck against him at all. This is clearly an excuse of his to avoid exposure of his evidence-less beliefs.

At 7/22/2013 2:42:20 PM, JonMilne wrote:I have posted this debate on the main page now. http://www.debate.org... . I'd like v3nesl to put forward his case there.

Look, if any of you seriously want to debate me, just propose a "Did life evolve" debate. Quit trying to stack the deck from the git go.

How the fvck is that trying to "stack the deck"? It simply asks you to prove ID is true and that evolution is not. What was the part that turned you off? The fact I asked you to provide sources for your claims for once? I mean, had you never looked at a main page debate before and not realised that sources are one of the voting criteria?

Voting criteria? I suppose these debates are what this site is about (the URL is a clue) and it's something I've never paid attention to. Look, I'm glad to share my opinion, but if this is volunteering to do a term paper, no thanks, I've paid my dues on that front. So again, if you want to do some formal debate, sure, I'll give it a shot, but I'm not providing links, I'm just going to tell you what I think. And if that's not what you want from me, don't debate me. Simple. Just keep it simple, a grown up exchange of views.

I can't believe someone could be this ridiculously pig ignorant as well as unashamedly intellectually dishonest. Of course he won't provide links, because he's got absolutely nothing to back up his case. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

To make matters worse, he then proposed this utterly laughable debate:

"Completely unacceptable terms and ridiculously vague, not to mention a dishonest attempt to make the debate about origins alone as opposed to the actual validity of whether evolution or intelligent design are valid scientific theories. There was no reason for you to not accept my actual debate challenge. You're a coward."

And that last is the crux of it. v3nesl was given an opportunity with a debate challenge that was made to be as fair as possible, and he rejects it even though he believes his position is superior - he just clearly wants to escape from giving actual sources for his position, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S CLEARLY ONE OF THE KEY DEBATING CRITERIA IN THE VOTING. Why the fvck would you come to a website called "Debate.org" and join it and view the debates that take place there if you're not prepared to provide a pivotal part of the debate process?

It's safe to say nonetheless that the combination of v3nesl backing out of a fair debate challenge while attempting to lure me with a biased debate challenge of his own where he'd be able to escape without giving evidence, means that any view v3nesl has to give about evolution and intelligent design is now null and void. He could just accept my debate challenge of course. What's he so afraid of if he is as right as he claims?

At 7/22/2013 3:48:04 PM, Enji wrote:calling people out is in poor taste imo

Yes, thank you. As I told him, I'm quite willing to have a straight up debate on evolution vs design, but I'm not going to play games with what is 'a valid scientific theory' or whatever.

Jonmilne often makes these arguments which are a combination of outlandish subjectivity and rhetoric. I have not read any prior discussion on the matter of ID but I would be shocked if his argument was anything different than what I've seen from him in the past.

The primary result of his arguments seem to be abusing those who have different beliefs than himself and so I am forced to conclude that this is probably its purpose.

Hopefully, he will learn how to argue effectively one day and that leads to thinking effectively and therefore leading to a little tolerance.

Maybe this statement I've made is in poor taste and maybe it's not, I don't know. But it sure is easy to justify such treatment.

At 7/22/2013 3:48:04 PM, Enji wrote:calling people out is in poor taste imo

Fair enough. It just irritated me how much of a dishonest prick v3nesl was being. Would you at least agree that his actions fit the description of cowardice?

No, they fit the description of someone who holds views that are not entirely unreasonable and are ridiculed without really investigating the way in which he applies them (as opposed to how your everyday ID theorist does). I'm not saying he's right, I think he's profoundly wrong but calling him out on it was just an attempt to get other people to jump on your bandwagon. I understand your frustration with ID, I share it at times, but there is no reason to resort to these methods (and they will never succeed in convincing him he is wrong, which I hope is your ultimate aim as opposed to simply getting the community to denounce him).

At 7/22/2013 3:48:04 PM, Enji wrote:calling people out is in poor taste imo

Yes, thank you. As I told him, I'm quite willing to have a straight up debate on evolution vs design, but I'm not going to play games with what is 'a valid scientific theory' or whatever.

Why not? That's the debate he's proposing.

Because it isn't the argument they were having, and it's not the debate v3nesl is proposing.

And it is very pertinent to whether or not children should be taught about it in school science classes or not.

I haven't seen v3nesl argue that ID should be taught in school science classes either.

As proposed, the debate would eliminate the distinction between the appropriate methodological naturalism of science and the presumed philosophical naturalism of Milne's scientism. Milne wants to stack the deck by eliminating that distinction from the debate so the fact that methodological naturalism is completely neutral regarding the conclusions of v3nesl's position can't be a factor. If not, he wouldn't have rejected v3nesl's counter proposal to simply have a straight up debate about the actual argument they have been discussing.

Scientism is science, it's a faith based religion that sees other faiths as competing belief systems. The OP is really about the stereotypical cowardice of an adherent of scientism projecting onto their opponent a mirror image of themselves.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 7/22/2013 3:48:04 PM, Enji wrote:calling people out is in poor taste imo

Yes, thank you. As I told him, I'm quite willing to have a straight up debate on evolution vs design, but I'm not going to play games with what is 'a valid scientific theory' or whatever.

Why not? That's the debate he's proposing.

Because it isn't the argument they were having, and it's not the debate v3nesl is proposing.

Yes it was. I stated my position is for evolution. He stated his position is for ID.

And it is very pertinent to whether or not children should be taught about it in school science classes or not.

I haven't seen v3nesl argue that ID should be taught in school science classes either.

As proposed, the debate would eliminate the distinction between the appropriate methodological naturalism of science and the presumed philosophical naturalism of Milne's scientism.

I don't "presume" anything, and nowhere is that mentioned in the actual text of the debate.

Milne wants to stack the deck by eliminating that distinction from the debate so the fact that methodological naturalism is completely neutral regarding the conclusions of v3nesl's position can't be a factor.

If v3nesl wanted to make such an argument in the debate, there was nothing stopping him.

If not, he wouldn't have rejected v3nesl's counter proposal to simply have a straight up debate about the actual argument they have been discussing.

I rejected it because it was ridiculously vague, didn't say what would actually be acceptable (so would I be allowed to present sources or not?) and didn't bother to give any definitions for the terms we'd be discussing. v3nesl rejected my debate because he knew he'd get called upon to deliver sources, as has evidently been shown to be his Archilles Heel.

Scientism is science, it's a faith based religion that sees other faiths as competing belief systems. The OP is really about the stereotypical cowardice of an adherent of scientism projecting onto their opponent a mirror image of themselves.

No, the usage of "scientism" by you here is simply an attempt to smear me as a means of dismissing any evidence that you don't like. Your attempt to smear me is based on the fact that (a), I believe science works, (b), that you consider this to be bad, (c), because your personal ox has been gored. I don't just consider science to be valuable. I think philosophy is pretty good too, but the best philosophies are the applied philosophies that can be used practically.

At 7/22/2013 3:48:04 PM, Enji wrote:calling people out is in poor taste imo

Yes, thank you. As I told him, I'm quite willing to have a straight up debate on evolution vs design, but I'm not going to play games with what is 'a valid scientific theory' or whatever.

Why not? That's the debate he's proposing.

It's not the debate he proposed, but I realize that he may not realize the distinction either. He may think that the subjective 'valid theory' equals 'objective truth'. Hopefully I and Richard Feynman can straighten him out in the debate, since I have accepted, on his terms.

And it is very pertinent to whether or not children should be taught about it in school science classes or not.

That's a political question. Purely political. Sigh. The lack of critical thinking in America is truly frightening, actually. Those who can't think for themselves are easily enslaved by others. They take your money in order to tell you what you must do, and you cheer them on.

At 7/23/2013 6:49:46 AM, JonMilne wrote:No, the usage of "scientism" by you here is simply an attempt to smear me as a means of dismissing any evidence that you don't like. Your attempt to smear me is based on the fact that (a), I believe science works, (b), that you consider this to be bad, (c), because your personal ox has been gored. I don't just consider science to be valuable. I think philosophy is pretty good too, but the best philosophies are the applied philosophies that can be used practically.

LOL, yes indeed, I"m the evil "them" of your paranoid siege mentality, one of the bad people who adhere to a different faith. I think it"s bad that science works, my ox is bleeding, I have been smitten by science again, curses, foiled again by facts"woe is me.

LMFAO"You just have to love the cartoon characters of scientism.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

It's a shame that line couldn't work on royal, she'd just call you sexist for using the phrase 'man up'.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.